If that's their point, let them come out and say it clearly. Those arguing that "obliteration" did, indeed, occur would have to agree, right? Not that I think we might all just finally agree on the facts. People are so disagreeable these days.
I can't bring myself to read "Obfuscating on Obliterating" the new Maureen Dowd column, but I did search the page for the word "uranium." It wasn't there. Is she obfuscating? I'm willing to bet that the column is about somebody else obfuscating.
I did my elaborate blog post on the word "obliterate" 3 days ago, and I'm not going to do that again. I did take the trouble to coin the word "anti-obliterationist" (The anti-obliterationists are annoying me).
And I considered doing a post about the word "obfuscate." I'm not going to do that, but looking for the word in my archive, I see that back in 2007, I wrote a post called "Words that sound dirty but aren't": "Here's a list.... Here's an even longer list. 'Obfuscate.' Man, I say that in class all the time (when talking about the Supreme Court)...."
Posts
74 comments:
A bomb is going to destroy property - not make uranium disappear.
The horrid left are desperate to make sure Trump, his team and the mission - get no credit.
I'm an anti-obfuscator. And a closeted anti-bhindist.
ot: The supreme court followed the constitution - and the leftist democratic media are lying and saying it gives "Trump more authority"
ugh.
You need more than 60 percent enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. How much the Iranian program was delayed by the bombing is something that only experts with detailed knowledge have the capacity to opine on.
Of course that doesnt stop Dowd (an expert on nothing) from having a snarky sarcastic opinion. She's has a teenage brain in an old woman's body.
"If that's their point, let them come out and say it clearly."
If they ever said what they truly meant, and revealed their true objectives, we might run out of lampposts.
Trump wants the war over, so he says the uranium is obliterated, lots of people have been angling for this war for decades, ever since the Iranians overthrew the government that we and the British installed there by coup in 1953. We were feeling our oats in 1953, and the Brits were egging us on.
So the anti-obliterationists are the ones who want the war to be back on, and their NPCs like Dowd. I doubt that Dowd really wants us involved in a war in Iran, but she does hate Trump, and that's enough.
Assuming the containers didn't survive the collapse, if there was a collapse, the U-235 would be hard to retrieve and would have been adulterated. Given that the structures are likely still unstable, there would have to be a lot of volunteers ready to give their lives to the cause.
In a just world, the word would be obfusticate.
It's probably cheaper in the long run to simply buy more uranium ore and start processing it.
What would really be cheaper would be to abandon those nuclear dreams and us that capital to improve their country.
Iran had about a thousand pounds of 60% enriched uranium, which they were allowed to have as long as they submitted to an intrusive inspection regime by the IAEA. The 93% enriched that the IAEA talked about in the finding that the conveniently issued hours before the attack by Israel was from two decades ago, and had already been surrendered to Russia as part of an earlier deal. So why the IAEA chose that moment to issue to vote on a "finding" of a 20 year old violation that everybody knew about, and had already been addressed calls into question the IAEA's impartiality, since it sure seems like it was coordinated.
The Iranians now are claiming that not only did the IAEA collude with the Israelis to provide a pretext for the strike, but gave the Israelis the contact information of Iran's nuclear scientists, who were assassinated in some numbers at the start of the attack, as well as details of the facilities that the IAEA had inspected.
Now we are offering Iran the same deal we offered North Korea, that we would support their peaceful nuclear power ambitions if they would give up enrichment. Well, guess what? After the Norks dismantled their enrichment facilities and destroyed the equipment, the US welched on our end of the bargain. We know what eventually happened.
Iran already gave up enrichment once, on the promise that they could get fuel for their reactors from the West, but, and stop me if you've heard this one, we blocked Iran from actually getting the fuel, even after they had paid for it.
This kind of lying often works in the short term, but long term, it seldom works out. Nobody outside the US propaganda bubble trusts the US anymore.
These people are demented and twisted.
Their entire world is built around opposing Trump and anything Trump does.
Everything they do is attacking anyone or anything associated with Trump. They are disease and rotting on a fundamental moral and intellectual level.
They are literally burning down anything they can get their hands on to attack what MAGA stands for.
They need to leave the country.
Well, if you're not going to read Modo for us, nobody else will. Can we just ignore her?
Mad Town Guy--"adulterated" sounds a lot dirtier that "obliterated." If Trump had said "adulterated" he would never hear the end of the jokes.
People might think that I hate America, I don't. The US is a good country, with people with good intentions—which is why they have to obfuscate their true intentions when they talk to us. We would never buy into their reckless and amoral schemes if they were put to an honest and forthright up-down vote.
Scott Adams says 30% of people have no sense of humor. I think that explains why 30% of people are completely clueless about Trump. And that's the science folks.
Disclaimer: some numbers may be POOMA .
People might think that I hate America
I don't, but I do have you on my list of commenters who are always wrong.
"the uranium is still there, even if under 200 meters of collapsed mountain"
the Titanic is still there, even if under a few thousand feet of water..
Pompeii is still there, even if under several feet of ash..
the Hindenburg is still there, even if sort of deflated and kinda burnt
Jaq said...
"Iran had about a thousand pounds of 60% enriched uranium.."
could you give US a reason for 60% enriched..
That DOESN'T involve nuking Israel?
Aborted and sequestered. The memory and carbon are still there, but the former is no longer a "burden", and the latter is no longer a first-order forcing of climate change.
I'm not an expert but I know that recoverability will depend on what form the uranium is in, which is a subject no one is talking about. At least I can't find any information about it.
Any excavation attempt would be visible by satellite. I'd assume the underground tunnels would trap and distribute the heat of the bombs.
Conventional Explosions: Typically reach temperatures around 5,000°C (9,000°F)....
Uranium. Symbol, U. Atomic Number, 92. Atomic Weight, 238.02891. Density, 19.05 g/cm3. Melting point, 1405.3 K (1132.2 °C, 2070 °F). Boiling point, 4404 K (4131 °C, 7468 °F). Density (at 20° C), 19.050 g/cm3. when liquid (at m.p.), 17.3 g/cm3.
Well, chuck, you can't argue with "Science."
And POOMA is a well-established methodology, particularly in the fields of Climate Science and Psychology.
Remember that all of these degenerate leftists were all in for world war III with Russia just so they could protect their sluch fund klepto state of Ukraine.
They do not believe a single word they say.
gilbar said...
Jaq said...
"Iran had about a thousand pounds of 60% enriched uranium.."
could you give US a reason for 60% enriched..
That DOESN'T involve nuking Israel?
It wasn't about nuking Israel.
It was about making it easier for Iran to shut down trade and freight through the Middle East and holding the world's Oil supply hostage.
Then they would allow their Chinese and Russian allies to play out their mercantilist fantasies.
If the 60% enriched uranium hexafluoride is buried, it would be far cheaper for the Iranians to simply start over from scratch no matter what purpose they had for the enriched uranium in the first place. As for them moving it before the bombings, I think this very unlikely since moving it at all would have made it even less safe from destruction- the entire purpose of the Fordow facility was to safe guard both the centrifuges and the uranium itself.
The same people who can't define "woman" are getting all worked up over "obliterated"? Why should anyone care what they think?
Leftists are all about redefining words whenever it suits their purposes, anyway.
I like how Trump using "obliterate" has driven the discussion of how the Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear weapon was only set back a tiny bit. Even by the US IC, at least until someone started realizing what they were saying in contrast to how they briefed DNI Tulsi Gabbard for her testimony last March
"Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, testified in March 2025 that the U.S. intelligence community continued to assess that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon."
For those not up on how you limit nuclear proliferation, here's the Engineer Guy, professor Bill Hammack with a short explanation 13 years ago. It's all about the enrichment of the uranium. The rest you can get from the 1980s movie 'Manhattan Project' about a high school kid who builds a bomb and steals some new nuclear material developed by John Lithgow's character, who's dating his mom. And that's assuming you don't use the gun-type mechanism used for the Hiroshima bomb.
https://youtu.be/OcgKDSwINOA
The uranium at those sites would likely be kept as uranium hexafluoride (UF6) for further enrichment.
In a uranium centrifuge, uranium is in a gaseous state. Uranium hexafluoride (UF6) is a solid at room temperature, but it turns into a gas when heated. The gas is then fed into a centrifuge's rotor, which spins at high speeds inside a steel casing. The spinning rotor creates a centrifugal force that separates the uranium isotopes by mass.
In its solid state, uranium hexafluoride (UF6) is a nearly white, dense crystalline solid. It appears as irregular shaped grains if formed by freezing from the liquid phase or a formless mass if formed by desubliming from the vapor phase.
UF6 transitions from a gas to a liquid when cooled and then to a solid as it cools further. It is in this solid form that UF6 is typically shipped for further processing, such as enrichment.
Handling UF6 in the solid state necessitates strict safety measures due to its inherent hazards:
Radioactive Properties: UF6 emits radioactive particles that can be inhaled, ingested, or penetrate the skin, increasing the risk of mutations, cancer, and reproductive damage.
Chemical Hazards: UF6 is a highly corrosive chemical. It reacts vigorously with water and moist air, producing corrosive hydrogen fluoride (HF) gas, which can cause severe burns to the skin and eyes, and damage the respiratory system.
Reactivity: UF6 is a reactive chemical and must be stored away from fuels, hydroxyl compounds, aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, and ethers to avoid violent reactions.
Safe handling procedures in the cool, solid state include:
Leak-Tight Handling: Always handle UF6 in leak-tight containers and processing equipment to prevent it from reacting with moisture in the air.
Monitoring: Since UF6 is not visible to the operator in leak-tight containers, rely on observing changes in pressure or weight to track its presence.
They could mine that uranium.
Where to start?
facts:
- you need U235 purity in excess of 90% to be bomb grade
- you get from 60% to 90% by various methods, one being centrifuges
- they had thousands of centrifuges at Fordow
- Centrifuges operate on Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) in gaseous form
- UF6 is nasty stuff. toxic, caustic, and radioactive. At room temp it is barely solid and sublimes its gaseous form
- in the presence of centrifuges, until you get to 90% there is no reason to change UF6 to a solid or a metallic form
- you hold/store/transfer UF6 in large casks resembling propane tanks next to a house
- after reaching 90% you use multiple chemical processes to remove the fluoride and create metallic U235
- penetration of the centrifuge vaults by the MOP57s would rupture many centrifuge cascades
Assumptions
- The Iranians were at 60% not 90%
- they were actively concentrating to 90%
- they were in a hurry
- until 90% concentrate, in the presence of centrifuges, it's a waste of effort to create metallic U235
-
Therefore, if the Iranian stockpile was at Fordow, it most likely was in UF6 form at 60% and now coats thousands of tons of rubble. It currently is slowly subliming to gaseous form.
We will notice any multiyear mining attempt
Wince and I were conducting near simultaneous classes in nuclear and chemical engineering
"The Iranians now are claiming that not only did the IAEA collude with the Israelis to provide a pretext for the strike, but gave the Israelis the contact information of Iran's nuclear scientists, who were assassinated in some numbers at the start of the attack, as well as details of the facilities that the IAEA had inspected."
They're "claiming" it because its true. The Israelis didn't have to bribe the whole IAEA, just one Inspector with access to the data. Of course, its obvious the head of IAEA was running cover for the USA and Israel.
There's zero reason for the Iranians to allow inspectors in again. Or forgo enrichment in favor of some "deal" since the USA or Israel (which breaks deals whenever they like) will bomb them anyway.
This is really about regime change not nuclear weapons. If Iran gives in on nukes, the next demand will be Iran must give up its Long range missiles. Then it will be drones, Then aircraft. The USA/Israel will keep on pushing till they get a war or a new regime.
Once you claim - as Israel does - that the current regime in Iran is "evil" and "out to destroy Israel" they wont stop until the regime is changed. And since America is Israel's bitch, we'll be supporting them.
Given this, Iran must know giving in on nukes is senseless. In fact the only way to save the regime is to get Nukes as soon as possible.
This whole Iranian kerfuffle has nothing to do with the welfare of the American people. And except for a few crazed Christian Zionists and American Jews (understandable), not many care about Iran. The MSM and DC Pols are all obsessed with Iran and seem to think they're our "enemy" but that's just a minority view. Most Americans do not care. But they don't have "the microphone".
Jaq said...
People might think that I hate America, I don't. The US is a good country, with people with good intentions—which is why they have to obfuscate their true intentions when they talk to us. We would never buy into their reckless and amoral schemes if they were put to an honest and forthright up-down vote.
This is morally juvenile.
There is no "good" or "evil" in these situations if you want to make intelligent decisions that shape a better future.
No matter what decisions are made people are going to die. You can pretend to wash your hands of the deaths that your decisions cause, but it is dishonest.
The question is not if people will die. It is who dies and how many die.
A world where Iran has a Nuclear weapon means more people will die and more people will be negatively affected by conflict than a world where we bomb Iran's nuclear program and Israel kills their leadership.
You want people to die too. you just haven't got the moral development or courage to admit it.
RCOCEAN II said...
This whole Iranian kerfuffle has nothing to do with the welfare of the American people. And except for a few crazed Christian Zionists and American Jews (understandable), not many care about Iran. The MSM and DC Pols are all obsessed with Iran and seem to think they're our "enemy" but that's just a minority view. Most Americans do not care. But they don't have "the microphone"
You are wrong. Iran was China's lever against the United States and allowed China to play mercantilist games with world shipping and oil prices.
China paid less for oil than we did because of Iran.
You can pretend all you want your simplistic view of Iran makes sense. It doesn't.
Lefties are always complaining about others doing what they, themselves, specialize in.
Sometimes a big win is just a BIG WIN.
"the Titanic is still there, even if under a few thousand feet of water.."
Ha!
Yes, if the 400kg of 60% heu is in the form of uf6 and is buried at Fordow in possibly damaged containers it is worthless. But the discussion is vague because 400kg of 60% enriched uf6 has a different density than uranium metal, so the quantities are not clear. The Isfahan plant in Iran was made to convert uf6 to uranium metal but it was destroyed recently. The process is not that hard but requires equipment and capital. And you don’t convert to metal before the centrifuges have enriched it to 90%. Why make 60% heu metal, there is no use for it except for possibly some weirdo reactor like a submarine.
Depending on how the uranium was stored they need to be careful that the damaged material is not concentrated into a critical mass. It would not go full nuke, but would emit neutrons and heat at a very dangerous level, so better leave it underground. That is why I don’t believe that the Iranians would have been moving the stuff all around the place in a hurry, I don’t think they are that dumb.
"could you give US a reason for 60% enriched..
That DOESN'T involve nuking Israel?"
Of course he can't. None of the "Iran is not building a bomb" crowd can.
One reason to say Trump didn't "obliterate" Iran's nuclear program is that the uranium is still there, even if under 200 meters of collapsed mountain. They could mine that uranium. Is that what the anti-obliterationists might mean?
Everything I read implies that Iran likely moved the refined uranium, if they even had it stored underground. Nobody knows where it was or where it is now, but what is known is that Trump warned them to get the fuck away from Fordo.
And of course, the Iranians can make centrifuges and can mine their own uranium deposits, and they will now step up the process of creating nuclear weapons.
BTW, why didn't the B-2s drop a load or two into the Pickaxe Mountain underground location?
Trump believes that he knows more than the combined intelligence organizations in the U.S. and Israel. All in, the bombing, fighter escorts, refueling, and submarine Tomahawk missile launches cost us something north of $500 million. But fuck Ukraine - they get nothing while their civilians die.
But I do think that Tulsi Gabbard is dumb for claiming that Iran was not out to build a bomb. There is no other credible reason for what they were doing. They may have been going slow and bragging it up to create a threat, but they were not spending on all these plants for nothing. And Sadam showed that telling people you have a wmd when you don’t is stupidity.
Anyone interested in how to make a nuclear weapon should read Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." He explains the science and engineering in detail. Seems like at this point it would be smarter for Iran to try to develop an implosion device (what the NoKo's did). The fuel is much easier to come by, but the device itself is much more difficult to pull off.
"I can't bring myself to read "Obfuscating on Obliterating" the new Maureen Dowd column ...".
I call that progress.
But then, Ketanji Brown Jackson apparently couldn't bring herself to read "boring legalese", or to pursue a "mind-numbingly technical query". So maybe this is a just the effect of a good legal education.
Althouse previously said...
How literally do we take "obliteration"? Really hardcore literalism would require that the thing be wiped from human memory. "Ob-" means against and "littera" means letter.
Word and song origins...
"Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Life goes on, brah."
You can make a bomb with 60% enriched U, but you need 2-3 times as much as with 90%. Might not be feasible to deliver by air, but of course other means of transport are available. Probably just as well we’re not receiving cargo ships from Iran.
This is from a table in the Wikipedia article on enriched uranium, linked as reference 14:
Sublette, Carey (4 October 1996). "Nuclear Weapons FAQ, Section 4.1.7.1: Nuclear Design Principles – Highly Enriched Uranium". Nuclear Weapons FAQ.
One reason to say Trump didn't "obliterate" Iran's nuclear program is that the uranium is still there, even if under 200 meters of collapsed mountain. They could mine that uranium.
Would digging up the uranium after the bombing have been part of Iran's past nuclear program?
Or would it be necessary to start a new program because the past program had been obliterated?
Aborted, sequestered, the profitable parts cannibalized, perhaps. A more viable choice would be to conceive and birth anew. Bomb Loads Matter (BLM)
This stuff the Dems are doing is not critical thinking. It’s just bullshitting. The existence of uranium in Iran is not inconsistent with obliteration of their nuclear weapons program.
Does it matter that the uranium is technically still there if it’s become contaminated?
The only practical way to have "obliterated" everything there would have been to nuke the site. But that would have raised a gigantic radioactive ash cloud into the atmosphere and no one in their right mind would have wanted that.
Okay if the uranium is still there, I nominate Senators Van Hollen and Murphy to go dig it up.
loudogblog said...
The only practical way to have "obliterated" everything there would have been to nuke the site. But that would have raised a gigantic radioactive ash cloud into the atmosphere and no one in their right mind would have wanted that.
Not if we used a hydrogen bomb though.
Radiation comes from fission bombs.
Jaq said...
"Iran had about a thousand pounds of 60% enriched uranium, which they were allowed to have as long as they submitted to an intrusive inspection regime by the IAEA."
This is factually incorrect. Enrichment to 60 % was never approved by the IAEA.
"But thanks to this nuclear deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98%, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67% — significantly below the enrichment level needed to create a bomb."
- The Obama White House.
Lem vibes definition:
"anti-obliterationist". Someone advocating for the preservation of every high rise.
Reminds me of that tragedy.
"Not if we used a hydrogen bomb though.
Radiation comes from fission bombs."
of course the heart of every H bomb is a fission bomb to jump start it
It's physically impossible to obliterate that much Uranium if your definition requires more than burying it under a mountain where it can't be reached without being hit with another bomb. Did the critics think we should have created an alchemy bomb that turned it into lead or falafel?
This is typical of most criticism of Trump. He didn't do it right, but they never offer an alternative that's realistic or even possible. They just assume there is a better way, and he should have done it. Even when he clearly did the best possible thing.
I can't bring myself to read ... Maureen Dowd.
Just continue to push the lie about Tulsi Gabbard -- might as well throw in "fine folks on both sides" and the "losers" LIES while you are at it. Gabbard said back in March that the Iranians were not building a WEAPON but had "unprecedented" levels of uranium that could be part of a nuclear weapons program. Stop twisting words to fit your agenda, as the Legacy Media assholes do.
"Not if we used a hydrogen bomb though."
it's Interesting, HOW Incredibly SMART Althouse posters are!
WOW! like, WOW!
let's ASSUME, for the sake of Argument, that you've built the FIRST hydrogen bomb that is LASER initiated (or some such); and YOUR bomb didn't have ANY fallout..
Please explain to me (like i'm a 5 year old), what would happen to the THOUSAND pounds of Uranium that you'd be blowing up into the atmosphere?
No WAIT! let's NOT assume that you've invented a fallout free h-bomb.. Let's assume you're mentally stupid
gilbar said...
"Not if we used a hydrogen bomb though."
it's Interesting, HOW Incredibly SMART Althouse posters are!
WOW! like, WOW!
let's ASSUME, for the sake of Argument, that you've built the FIRST hydrogen bomb that is LASER initiated (or some such); and YOUR bomb didn't have ANY fallout..
Please explain to me (like i'm a 5 year old), what would happen to the THOUSAND pounds of Uranium that you'd be blowing up into the atmosphere?
No WAIT! let's NOT assume that you've invented a fallout free h-bomb.. Let's assume you're mentally stupid
Wow. You are really getting some jollies out of this.
Have a tough day at work? Jokes are hard for some people.
Not if we used a hydrogen bomb though. Radiation comes from fission bombs.
Incorrect. for basically 3 reasons:
1) It's true that the fusion process itself (tritium + deuterium -> helium + neutron) produces little in the way of directly radioactive products. However, it does liberate a plenitude of high-energy neutrons (plus some gamma rays), which then bounce around, glancing off surrounding ground and air molecules, losing energy until (their wavelength increases to the point where) they're likely to get absorbed—whereupon (typically) the ultimately recipient atomic nucleus gets transmuted into a radioactive isotope. Such energetic neutrons can also travel a considerable distance—irradiating you (making some of your atoms radioactive) even if you're standing by up to half a dozen miles away.
2) Beyond that, as also noted up-thread, all hydrogen (i.e., fusion) bombs get triggered (raised to a high enough temperature for fusion to occur) by a preceding fission explosion—producing highly radioactive products directly. (It's possible that sometime in the future laser or some other triggering method might be capable of being used rather than a whole preceding fission-bomb explosion, but nobody has managed it yet.)
3) Modern “hydrogen” bombs gain additional explosive yield by cladding the bomb with U-238—so-called “depleted” uranium—or natural uranium (mostly U-238). U-238 is a normally non-fissionable isotope of uranium, but which does fission when irradiated by high-energy neutrons—as fusion provides in plenitude—thereby generating even more highly radioactive by-products.
I like the joke going around that big media assured us that Iran was years away from getting a nuclear weapon. But now that their facilities have been destroyed they'll have one in matter of months. Because Trump lies, of course.
RCOcean - it's ALWAYS "The Joooooos" with this guy. Give it a rest. If you were a communist you would say "the Jews are the bourgeoisie and the source of all evil." If you were a capitalist you would say "The Jews are communists and the source of all evil." It's the way of antisemites from the beginning of time. If Jews try to assimilate you would say they are infiltrating our society. And if they try to stay away from the outside world and live as Jews you would say they see themselves as superior and will not interact with us.
Whatever characteristic a Jew holds, people like RCOcean have always found an excuse why that trait, in a Jew, is the source of the world's misery.
At least it's not only me. Others have commented that your Jew hatred is pretty out there. At least you make it easy for others to identify what you are.
RCOCEAN II said...
This whole Iranian kerfuffle has nothing to do with the welfare of the American people. And except for a few crazed Christian Zionists and American Jews (understandable), not many care about Iran. The MSM and DC Pols are all obsessed with Iran and seem to think they're our "enemy" but that's just a minority view. Most Americans do not care. But they don't have "the microphone".
6/28/25, 10:25 AM
...
It's apparent to all that any love you might have for USA is tiny in comparison to how much you hate Jews but let's try this ...
Is Iran a benign nation? Or are they the world's primary support and instigator of terrorism? Any rational person knows it is the latter.
Does Iran want to rule the ME? Of course yes. It's clear to those with eyes.
Does Islam demand that the world is ruled by sharia, and does Iran mean to the the actor to implement that? Of course yes.
Does a significant amount of the world's oil travel through Hormuz? Yes. Is oil the very lifeblood of the world's economy? Of course yes. If Iran had the power to shut down Hormuz would it be a catastrophe for oil prices and so the world economy? Of course yes. If Iran had the power to do so would it - in effect - be able to rule the world economy? Yes. Think of the spice in Dune.
If Iran is not a nuclear power would it dare do so? No. If Iran were a nuclear power would the world dare oppose it? No.
To ask the question is to answer it.
Only a fool sees a nuclear Iran as good. Not only would a nuclear Iran be a catastrophe for the world but it would be a catastrophe for the Jewish people in general and Israel in particular.
Sadly, because a nuclear Iran would be bad for Jews, you - a wicked person who hates Jews - advocated for a nuclear Iran EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE A CATASTROPHE for the world.
At some point you really need to step back and try to figure out how did you get to be such a person that hating Jews has become so much who you are that you advocate for policies that would destroy the world economy and bring misery, poverty, and death to billions as well as expand sharia across the world.
“Not if we used a hydrogen bomb though.
Radiation comes from fission bombs.”
H-bombs produce plenty of radiation. From the Wikipedia article on the 1954 Castle Bravo test:
“A Japanese fishing boat, Daigo Fukuryū Maru (Lucky Dragon No. 5), came in direct contact with the fallout, which caused many of the crew to grow ill due to radiation sickness. One member died of a secondary infection six months later after acute radiation exposure, and another had a child that was stillborn and deformed.[42] This resulted in an international incident and reignited Japanese concerns about radiation, especially as Japanese citizens were once more adversely affected by US nuclear weapons.”
And that was just the beginning:
“Radioactive fallout was spread eastward onto the inhabited Rongelap and Rongerik atolls, which were evacuated[37] 48 hours after the detonation.[38] In 1957, the Atomic Energy Commission deemed Rongelap safe to return, and allowed 82 inhabitants to move back to the island. Upon their return, they discovered that their previous staple foods, including arrowroot, makmok, and fish, had either disappeared or gave residents various illnesses,[39] and they were again removed.[40] Ultimately, 15 islands and atolls were contaminated, and by 1963 Marshall Islands natives began to suffer from thyroid tumors, including 20 of 29 Rongelap children at the time of Bravo, and many birth defects were reported.”
Achilles, after making a moronic statement, says:
"it was a JOOOKE!"
How refreshing to see the Media take interest in the actual meaning of words after being somnolent for four long years, willing to accept presidential mumbling like “trimupalization” at face value or “you know, the thing” in place of the Declaration of Independence.
loudogblog said...
"The only practical way to have "obliterated" everything there would have been to nuke the site. But that would have raised a gigantic radioactive ash cloud into the atmosphere and no one in their right mind would have wanted that."
Orrrrrr. You could obliterate it by burying the debris under millions of tons of mountain.
It is indeed still there. But it seems it may have burned, which as I recall means it oxidized rapidly, which means it is likely spread through several cubic miles of rock. Not saying Iran cannot recover it, but I damn sure do not want to be one of the miners trying to recover it. Or the smelters trying to separate it. Or the chemists trying to turn it back into uranium hexaflouride. Seems to be a pretty good job of "obliteration" for the purpose the Iranians had for it.
I came here to say I hope someone who knows what they are talking about explains that the thought you can now just dig the uranium out is mistaken.
For us laymen I will state this in non-technical terms.
Uranium and the chemicals used to process it are nasty and dangerous. The uranium is not in the form of bricks or nuggets you can pick up and put in the back of a truck.
No one in their right mind would try to recover this nasty, poisonous stuff by digging a mountain’s worth of rock looking for loose poison.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.